Kerb Hohl wrote:I was responding to twirly saying that we shouldn't go near any big/long contracts. We're not a big market, but the Cubs' rotation outside of Arrieta and Hendricks (and Arrieta is still expensive in arby) cost $50 million dollars last season for 3 pitchers.

How about you **** read? Obviously we're not getting close on the Price and Scherzer type contracts so we always go a level or two down for the Suppan, Wolf type contracts that never end well. Would you not agree that we need to stay away from those?

stellation wrote:"What's the difference between Gery Woelful and this glass of mineral water? The mineral water actually has a source."

El Duderino wrote:They'll have to finally draft/develop it, something this organization has failed miserably to do for decades..

Trade for pitching prospects which the team then hopes pan out.

Maybe catch a break or two like Theo did with Arrieta and Hendricks.

Pray that young pitching prospects both stay healthy and can translate minor league success into big league success.

Some combination of the above. Easier said than done though.

Sure, those are all options I am hoping for. We're already probably too far into this rebuild to hope for a stud pitcher to come out of the draft for the front half of this next contention window unless it is a very polished college pitcher.

I was responding to twirly saying that we shouldn't go near any big/long contracts. We're not a big market, but the Cubs' rotation outside of Arrieta and Hendricks (and Arrieta is still expensive in arby) cost $50 million dollars last season for 3 pitchers.

We hopefully will trade for more pitching, but I'm not even sure if packaging Brinson and another big prospect will get some Chris Sale-esque prospect to Milwaukee. We could dump half of our prospects into Jose Quintana but half of this board would jump off a bridge.

So, where is it going to come from? I hope Hader, Woodruff, Guerra, and some of the other prospects are all good and can fill a solid rotation. That means we'd just have to fill the #4 or #5 slot with some shorter-term vet deals.

However, if those guys are not really that good...we're going to overpay for some pitching. Whether it is via trade or via free agency.

I don't see Stearns trading good prospects for a starter this year. Maybe down the road he would go that route if starters in the minors don't pan out in the majors.

Stearns strikes me as a total talent miner so i see him eventually calling up pitchers from the minors and seeing how they do, along with trying to find who he views as undervalued pitchers that he hopes could be better than previous results.

I'm sure that even he is surprised at how good the offense is for the team this year, but i just don't see him rushing the process to trade high end prospects for a starter if the team is somewhere in the Wild Card chase come July.

But who knows with him. Guys like Broxton, Shaw, and Thames look like massive steals. I'm just glad Attanasio hired Stearns because i have so much confidence in his talent evaluation abilities, even though not every move will work out.

Kerb Hohl wrote:I was responding to twirly saying that we shouldn't go near any big/long contracts. We're not a big market, but the Cubs' rotation outside of Arrieta and Hendricks (and Arrieta is still expensive in arby) cost $50 million dollars last season for 3 pitchers.

How about you **** read? Obviously we're not getting close on the Price and Scherzer type contracts so we always go a level or two down for the Suppan, Wolf type contracts that never end well. Would you not agree that we need to stay away from those?

Stearns would never be for signing a Suppan type of pitcher and contract so long as Attanasio doesn't interfere like he did with Garza and Loshe.

Even Mark A admitted that they didn't do nearly enough to keep the farm system stocked, and he said he had second thoughts about his organizational philosophy. I don't care what anybody says; it's ridiculous to stockpile one of the best minor league systems in recent memory and then be a .500 team with 6 playoff wins (in the wild card era) over the next 10 years.

They could have easily traded guys like Ramirez, Hart, Weeks, and Yovani for a frickin' haul at the end of the 2012 season. Lohse and Garza should have been traded years ago when it was clear they were going nowhere, too. Hell, even Marcum and Wolf might have been worth something after the 2011 season, despite their disastrous September and October that year. And with Braun's positive test, they should have heeded the bad omens and traded him after his monstrous 2012 season. They weren't going any damn place anyway.

A small market team needs to trade guys like that before they decline. Look at how it's worked out for them trading a bunch of guys just before they decline since Stearns took over. It's so obvious that that needs to be the strategy for small market teams that I don't see how anybody can even debate that. With their attendance and their owner's pockets + competitive drive, they can still sign some B-level free agents and keep a few of their best homegrown players of their choosing, provided those players aren't showing signs of decline. There's no excuse for not having more sustainable success after accumulating so much talent in the draft.

When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.

Starting with the Lind trade it sure seems Stearns strategy with pitching it so load up on quantity at the lower levels and hope like hell a few of them pan out. Not a bad strategy considering pitching is so finicky with injuries and just plain lack of consistent performance. Now I hope the development aspect has improved because the brewers have pretty much sucked at developing pitching for the past couple decades.

Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming Wow! What a Ride!-H.S.T.

coolhandluke121 wrote:Even Mark A admitted that they didn't do nearly enough to keep the farm system stocked, and he said he had second thoughts about his organizational philosophy. I don't care what anybody says; it's ridiculous to stockpile one of the best minor league systems in recent memory and then be a .500 team with 6 playoff wins (in the wild card era) over the next 10 years.

They could have easily traded guys like Ramirez, Hart, Weeks, and Yovani for a frickin' haul at the end of the 2012 season. Lohse and Garza should have been traded years ago when it was clear they were going nowhere, too. Hell, even Marcum and Wolf might have been worth something after the 2011 season, despite their disastrous September and October that year. And with Braun's positive test, they should have heeded the bad omens and traded him after his monstrous 2012 season. They weren't going any damn place anyway.

A small market team needs to trade guys like that before they decline. Look at how it's worked out for them trading a bunch of guys just before they decline since Stearns took over.

I don't think Stearns traded guys like Lucroy, Davis, Smith, Jeffress, Thornburg, etc at all because he thought they were due to decline. He traded them because the organization badly needed an overall/rebuild, along with the farm system needing to be restocked.

He also looked at the obvious place the team was in the competitive curve. In the current place the team was in when Stearns took over, they clearly weren't a serious contender, so it made sense to trade quality late inning relievers who have far greater value to contenders than non-contenders, a catcher who was a year and a half from free agency, and a one tool outfielder blocking Santana and other outfield prospects who needed a chance to play.

The bigger test with Stearns will be with guys like Shaw and Broxton if say two years from now they are still playing well on pretty good to good teams, but they are now 29-30 years old, getting closer to free agency, and there are prospects at their positions in the minors.

I think Stearns is smart, good at evaluating talent, and plenty willing to to make trades compared to some GM's who are less willing to pull the trigger, but it's impossible to know how he's going to react if/when the team wins and he has to juggle between roster composition with very productive MLB players no longer in their 20's who are a year or two from free agency, along with guys in the minors who may be ready to come up.

There is also the Attanasio wild card. He seems to have been willing to not interfere with Stearns so far at least compared to when Melvin was GM, but that could change as the team gets good again.

coolhandluke121 wrote:A small market team needs to trade guys like that before they decline. Look at how it's worked out for them trading a bunch of guys just before they decline since Stearns took over.

I don't think Stearns traded guys like Lucroy, Davis, Smith, Jeffress, Thornburg, etc at all because he thought they were due to decline. He traded them because the organization badly needed an overall/rebuild, along with the farm system needing to be restocked.

Fair enough but we've known as long as analytics has been around that 27 and 28 are the peak years for production. If your organizational philosophy is to keep guys like that instead of taking advantage of the market inefficiency that over-pays for such players in trades, then you either better be able to spend so much it doesn't matter or be ready for perennial mediocrity, which is what the Brewers basically achieved in the era that began with Prince, Hart, Weeks, and Hardy.

If you're constantly keeping guys too long, you're going to get burned over and over again. It's ironic that keeping them is almost a better way to get tank than trading them for borderline MLB-ready prospects just outside the top 100. Just look at how guys who weren't thought of as very good prospects have produced in the last few years. Guys like Davies, Fiers, and Anderson are just as good as, if not better than, guys like Lohse, Marcum, Suppan, Wolf, and Garza in several seasons - for about 1/10th the price. Guys like Santana and Shaw weren't great prospects, but they're a lot more productive than Weeks, Hart, or Ramirez were by the time the Brewers finally pulled the plug on them. They needed to play the averages and institute an organizational philosophy of trading guys that age, but instead they did the exact opposite and the results were as predictable as taxes. You could justify keeping a few guys like that if you're confident in their health and fitness and ability to age well, but keeping them should be the exception and not the rule. They literally almost all turned into negative WAR players by the time they were done, which is atrocious.

And they should have drafted and developed pitchers better. Just saying "they had no pitchers" is no excuse.

When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.

Kerb Hohl wrote:I was responding to twirly saying that we shouldn't go near any big/long contracts. We're not a big market, but the Cubs' rotation outside of Arrieta and Hendricks (and Arrieta is still expensive in arby) cost $50 million dollars last season for 3 pitchers.

How about you **** read? Obviously we're not getting close on the Price and Scherzer type contracts so we always go a level or two down for the Suppan, Wolf type contracts that never end well. Would you not agree that we need to stay away from those?

Suppan was pretty terrible and I had no interest in that, but you're going to probably be pissed at some of the pitching we bring in if we don't net 4-5 good pitchers in this next crop.

I don't want to take anything away from Stearns on the job he has done so far, because there isn't really anything to complain about, but a good point was just brought up. The tear down is the easy part. How he manages the current guys moving forward when the dollars start piling up is the real test. It's easy to say 'that's why you stockpile, to help offset the tough decisions on letting a younger guy walk' but in baseball it rarely works out so nice. I've said it before, the Braun, Fielder, Weeks, Hardy, Hart etc was the exception, not the rule. At some point he will have to fill in the holes via FA whenever that time is right

coolhandluke121 wrote:Even Mark A admitted that they didn't do nearly enough to keep the farm system stocked, and he said he had second thoughts about his organizational philosophy. I don't care what anybody says; it's ridiculous to stockpile one of the best minor league systems in recent memory and then be a .500 team with 6 playoff wins (in the wild card era) over the next 10 years.

They could have easily traded guys like Ramirez, Hart, Weeks, and Yovani for a frickin' haul at the end of the 2012 season. Lohse and Garza should have been traded years ago when it was clear they were going nowhere, too. Hell, even Marcum and Wolf might have been worth something after the 2011 season, despite their disastrous September and October that year. And with Braun's positive test, they should have heeded the bad omens and traded him after his monstrous 2012 season. They weren't going any damn place anyway.

A small market team needs to trade guys like that before they decline. Look at how it's worked out for them trading a bunch of guys just before they decline since Stearns took over.

I don't think Stearns traded guys like Lucroy, Davis, Smith, Jeffress, Thornburg, etc at all because he thought they were due to decline. He traded them because the organization badly needed an overall/rebuild, along with the farm system needing to be restocked.

He also looked at the obvious place the team was in the competitive curve. In the current place the team was in when Stearns took over, they clearly weren't a serious contender, so it made sense to trade quality late inning relievers who have far greater value to contenders than non-contenders, a catcher who was a year and a half from free agency, and a one tool outfielder blocking Santana and other outfield prospects who needed a chance to play.

The bigger test with Stearns will be with guys like Shaw and Broxton if say two years from now they are still playing well on pretty good to good teams, but they are now 29-30 years old, getting closer to free agency, and there are prospects at their positions in the minors.

I think Stearns is smart, good at evaluating talent, and plenty willing to to make trades compared to some GM's who are less willing to pull the trigger, but it's impossible to know how he's going to react if/when the team wins and he has to juggle between roster composition with very productive MLB players no longer in their 20's who are a year or two from free agency, along with guys in the minors who may be ready to come up.

There is also the Attanasio wild card. He seems to have been willing to not interfere with Stearns so far at least compared to when Melvin was GM, but that could change as the team gets good again.

That is pretty much exactly where I'm at with the front office as well. I do think Attanasio has learned from his last go round that you can make the playoffs annually without gutting the minor league system.

"Oh, you're Boy Scouts, but you know life. You know life. So -- look at you." - #45

Iheartfootball wrote:That is pretty much exactly where I'm at with the front office as well. I do think Attanasio has learned from his last go round that you can make the playoffs annually without gutting the minor league system.

I would argue that you're more likely to consistently be a playoff contender if you don't gut the minor league system, especially if you've built the kind of talent engine the Brewers had when Mark A bought the team. Just keep one eye on the present and one eye on the future and you're much better in the long run.

When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.

Iheartfootball wrote:That is pretty much exactly where I'm at with the front office as well. I do think Attanasio has learned from his last go round that you can make the playoffs annually without gutting the minor league system.

I would argue that you're more likely to consistently be a playoff contender if you don't gut the minor league system, especially if you've built the kind of talent engine the Brewers had when Mark A bought the team. Just keep one eye on the present and one eye on the future and you're much better in the long run.

That's exactly what I said.

"can make the playoffs without gutting the minor league system"

"Oh, you're Boy Scouts, but you know life. You know life. So -- look at you." - #45

Iheartfootball wrote:That is pretty much exactly where I'm at with the front office as well. I do think Attanasio has learned from his last go round that you can make the playoffs annually without gutting the minor league system.

I would argue that you're more likely to consistently be a playoff contender if you don't gut the minor league system, especially if you've built the kind of talent engine the Brewers had when Mark A bought the team. Just keep one eye on the present and one eye on the future and you're much better in the long run.

That's exactly what I said.

"can make the playoffs without gutting the minor league system"

Right. What I meant was, "Not only can you make the playoffs consistently; you're actually more likely to." I'm taking what you said one big step further. The last two pages are me basically arguing that they had much less sustained success than they should have precisely because of their win-now mandate.

When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.

Iheartfootball wrote:That is pretty much exactly where I'm at with the front office as well. I do think Attanasio has learned from his last go round that you can make the playoffs annually without gutting the minor league system.

I would argue that you're more likely to consistently be a playoff contender if you don't gut the minor league system, especially if you've built the kind of talent engine the Brewers had when Mark A bought the team. Just keep one eye on the present and one eye on the future and you're much better in the long run.

You have to also factor in that Attanasio was a new owner when this stuff happened and new owners tend to be impatient, along with wanting to involve themselves in the decision making.

So that's likely where he found himself negotiating contracts for guys like Suppan, Lohse, Garza, Ramirez, and K-Rod, even in situations where media reports stated that Melvin wasn't fully on board with those decisions.

Now he's been an owner for awhile and when he handed the team over to Stearns i think he's now more willing to just let his GM make the important decisions with less interference. I'm sure that he still wants to be closely informed of moves of significance because the team is his baby and he enjoys the team building process, but i get the feeling that he no longer will be negotiating contracts with the agents of free agents when Stearns isn't fully on board.

There often can be a learning process for owners of pro sports teams just as any first time GM has to go through a learning process because owners typically are wealthy men who made their money being deeply involved in the process of building their company, but pro sports are a different animal where they don't know as much as they think they do.

coolhandluke121 wrote:And they should have drafted and developed pitchers better. Just saying "they had no pitchers" is no excuse.

But it was a reality. Both Zduriencik and Seid were dismal failures when it came to their decisions in regards to what pitchers they drafted.

Injuries to pitching prospects can sometimes just be bad luck, they also simply whiffed repeatedly on pitchers they drafted and as a result it left the minors barren of quality pitching prospects. Zduriencik did a good job when it came to position players, but it was mostly one whiff after another when it came to pitchers and Seid mostly sucked at drafting overall.

For all of the credit and blame which GM's of baseball teams get, scouting directors who pretty much run drafts are so often underrated in their importance, especially for small market teams who rely so heavily on their minor league systems for success.

That's a great point about the importance of scouts and drafting. However, they drafted pretty well overall, and they had plenty of assets to work with. Without absolving others of blame, I still contend that their impatience and win-now vision was the defining factor in how this organization was run and why they had a very disappointing record after stockpiling one of the best farm systems in recent memory right before Mark A bought the team. I am pretty confident that he learned his lesson, but I hate when he gets credit for turning the franchise around when frankly they actually did a good deal worse than what they should have done in the era starting when Prince et al came up.

When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.

Baseball is the only pro sport where the actual GM doesn't run the draft, so the GM either reaps the benefits of a good scouting director or feels the pain of a bad one. That said, a GM hires his scouting director.